Talk:22nd century
Removed : Mid-22nd century * A Vulcan science mission discovers a subspace rupture in the Hanoli system. The Vulcans attempt to seal the rupture with a pulse wave torpedo, but instead cause the rupture to expand exponentially. The entire star system, including the Vulcans, is wiped out. ( ) :::The events were stated to have happened in the mid-23rd century in the episode. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:25, March 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::Please read the background note I added to , the events were ALSO stated to have been in the 22nd century, which is confirmed by the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Kennelly (talk) 11:16, March 11, 2016 (UTC) ::::To elaborate on this, Miles O'Brien: "The Vulcans were using a primitive device. In the past two hundred years, we've developed far better ways of controlling the flux density. We should be able to contain the internal reaction this time." This clearly says that that incident happened 200 years ago, especially the use of better and this time. So, oviously a contradiction to the statement by Jadzia Dax, but the STE goes along with O'Brien's statement. Kennelly (talk) 14:39, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :::I made the edit aware of the situation (even wrote a note of my own on it, here). My reasoning is that since the events were explicitly said to have happened in the 23rd century, whereas a 22nd century setting is only implied, the former ought to win out. We'll just have to assume that there's some complication we don't know about and O'Brien didn't mean to imply it happened then even though it seems like he did . :::But I'm not sure with what goal you are posting - are you arguing that the note ought to be put back, or just offering some context? -- Capricorn (talk) 18:37, March 11, 2016 (UTC) ::::I actually think that with the piece of dialogue I quoted, which IMO is very clear, together with the STE supporting my view, the 22nd century should take precedence. Kennelly (talk) 21:51, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :::The Encyclopedia should have zero weight in a discussion like this, it's just not canon information. Also, the 23rd century statement is effectively as clear as can possibly be, so I'm confused how the 22nd century statement being very clear (not that I think it is) would lead to it taking precedence. Best case they should be equally valued. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:04, March 11, 2016 (UTC) ::::Of course the STE should have some weight, when there are two contradictory canon statements and a production source confirms one of them, why shouldn't we go with this source! I stand by my opinion and would like some input from a few other people. Kennelly (talk) 15:37, March 13, 2016 (UTC) :::It would be a stretch to call the STE a production source (those would more be like scripts, interviews, etc), but anyway, this idea that that supplementary information should count as a tie breaker in case of contradiction information is simply not true. What policy actually prescribes is certainly not choosing one version over another, but to bend over backwards to to the maximum extent possibly represent it all. In this case, I feel the way to respect all dialog is mentioning the rift was reported in the 23rd century, and that the technology used to meddle with it was 200 years old. :::I do agree that it would be helpful if more people would comment. Two person discussions tend to deadlock too easy. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:31, March 13, 2016 (UTC)